Case Digest (A.C. No. 10782)
Facts:
Atty. Delio M. Aseron v. Atty. Jose A. Dino, Jr., A.C. No. 10782, September 14, 2016, Supreme Court Third Division, Reyes, J., writing for the Court.On January 25, 2009, Atty. Delio M. Aseron (complainant) was involved in a vehicular accident with a bus operated by Nova Auto Transport, Inc. (NATI) driven by Jerry Garcia. The complainant pursued (a) a criminal action against Garcia for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Damage to Property with Serious Physical Injuries (Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 36, Criminal Case No. 025403) and (b) a civil action for damages against Garcia and NATI (Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 105, Ci Case No. Q-09-64558). Atty. Jose A. Dino, Jr. (respondent) was counsel of record for Garcia and NATI in both cases.
Prior to litigation, complainant’s counsel demanded P2,000,000 in damages from NATI. On March 20, 2009 respondent sent a reply letter which the complainant characterized as couched in abusive and disrespectful language and as making malicious insinuations—specifically suggesting the complainant had used his influence as a former public prosecutor to delay release of the bus unless the mercenary claim was paid. The complainant filed a libel complaint with the City Prosecutor over that letter. He also accused respondent of dilatory tactics in the criminal and civil cases and of inconsistent pleadings regarding ownership of the bus.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines — Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP‑CBD) ordered respondent to file an answer (Feb. 11, 2010); respondent failed to do so. A mandatory conference was set (Aug. 9, 2010); respondent did not attend and failed to file a brief, and on April 6, 2011 the IBP‑CBD declared the case submitted for resolution. Commissioner Oliver A. Cachapero issued a Report and Recommendation (Nov. 6, 2011) recommending censure for lack of courtesy toward a fellow lawyer. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the report (Feb. 12, 2013), and after denying respondent’s first motion for reconsideration (filed May 16, 2013) the Board modified the penalty upward from censure to reprimand (Resolution No. XXI‑2014‑597, Sept. 27, 2014). Respondent thereafter so...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is a second Motion for Reconsideration before the IBP Board of Governors procedurally permissible, and if not, should the Supreme Court treat respondent’s second motion as a Petition for Review under Rule 45?
- On the merits, is there sufficient evidence to hold respondent liable for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility through the use of intemperate or abusive l...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)